"upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
we don't know...we aren't given any more details. than that. The Devil used the serpent and in doing so it was corrupted.VIBE86;1653906 said:
the ground was cursed because of Adam's sin. (Genesis 3:17). The whole nation of Israel would lose battles when just one person out the whole camp sinned. etc
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
The chicken evolving into a shark is exactly what evolution teaches. I can't belive people actually believe that nonsense. According to evolution every living organism came from a slime pit, some ancient primordial ooze. Last time I checked all living creatures returned to dust, not some ooze. So yeah, thanks for comprehending my statment.
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven?;1654549 said:
Omfg... NO! That is NOT "what evolution teaches". You're either (A) a moron/simpleton(which you don't strike me as, but clearly I could be wrong), (B) you had THE worst science teachers in existence, or (C) you just made that silly shit up in your head to help convince YOURSELF evolution isn't true (likely... In which case I have no choice but to refer you back to option A)
Evolution says nothing about one species of animal transforming completely into another species. A dog can't evolve into a cat, but it can turn evolve into a different type of dog to better adapt to it's surroundings (thicker fur, more fat under it's skin for colder climates, for example)
Also... I guess when your father busted that nut that was to become you, he shot you out in a cloud of dust, huh? And not that ooze-like sperm that everyone else comes from...
Please don't insult our (and yours, for that matter) intelligence with that bullshit.
Last edited:
Maybe this will help you understand the "primordial ooze" of evolution
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism?wasRedirected=true
Here is an evolutionary tree (starting from unicellular organisms)
A chicken cannot just jump into the ocean and "evolve" into a shark. That's not how evolution works. Smh @ lookin at a can of tuna thinking you had evolution figured out
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism?wasRedirected=true
Here is an evolutionary tree (starting from unicellular organisms)
A chicken cannot just jump into the ocean and "evolve" into a shark. That's not how evolution works. Smh @ lookin at a can of tuna thinking you had evolution figured out
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
b*braze;1655167 said:
So taking the statement that you just said above, where does evolution stand in regards to humans? What did human beings evolve from? Because from what I understand, which is nothing but utter non-sense, humans evolved from "ape-like" creatures.
So how can you state what you said above? I mean there are more holes in that statment than swiss cheese.
How can you say that my friend? I mean how?
Evolution says that all the species, extinct and living, evolved from some ancient primordial ooze. That means that everything that has lived evolved from some other type of organism. So how can the statement that you stated be true?
You might want to look up macro-evolution and then come and talk to me my friend. God bless.
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven?;1655418 said:
An ape-like creature evolving into a human is different from say a chicken evolving into a shark(dumb) because for one thing a shark is already a preexisting creature. Prior to the evolution humans did not exist. How is this hard to grasp?
Evolved from and transformed to are two different things. There are intermediary steps that occur over time. Evolution is an advancement into a new form not a sidestep transformation into another totally unrelated preexisting creature.
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven?;1655418 said:
Evolution is a long process to get from one species to a completely separate one. The initial species that the new species evolves from doesn't just morph into it's evolved ascendant. The ascended species is and offshoot of the main species that ended up living in a different environment from it's origns. So if you wanted your chicken to turn into a shark, not only would it take the chicken to have to live and survive in a shark inhabitable environment, but it would also take millions of years of extremely slow mutations from birth after birth after birth until eventually, the chicken's dna, due to survival of the fittest and those small mutated birthed chickens having features that best suit the animal for surviving in that environment, eventually growing slowly over time, full functional gills and dorsal fin. It might not look exactly like a modern shark, but it would probably be a something like a chicken shark.... shark with a sharp beak/mouth like an octopus....
Evolution does not work how you are trying to make it sound. A monkey is not going to give birth to a full blown human.... IF monkeys were ever to evolve into a humanoid sentient being... for one they would probably end up looking like the apes on the movie planet of the apes.... especially way before they ended up looking like us... if the environment dictated the need for them to appear like us at all....
Last edited:
Abrupt transformations from one biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water into land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare. Few major biological types have emerged during the evolutionary history of life and most of them survive till today. When lifeforms take such giant leaps, they meet little to no competition and are able to exploit a plethora of available niches, following a pattern of adaptive radiation. This can lead to convergent evolution, where unrelated populations display similar adaptations.[4]
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one*– the only difference between them is of time and scale.
Misuse
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
3] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[14][15]
You were saying?
Lmao @ "look up macroevolution". You don't even understand it yourself.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one*– the only difference between them is of time and scale.
Misuse
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
3] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[14][15]
You were saying?
Lmao @ "look up macroevolution". You don't even understand it yourself.
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
b*braze;1655470 said:
It's no different because its all BS. And it's not hard to grasp because there isnt anything to grasp. Macro-evolution has never been observed, but yet those who deny God believe it happend. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness because their deeds are evil. Only fools believe in evolution. And thats why only fools say there is no God.
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
Chike;1655484 said:
So you believe that macro-evolution has and is currently taking place? Like this diagram illustrates?
Last edited:
Members online
No members online now.
